APPLE, INC. v. AMERANTH (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – Automation of a desired result without a method for achieving that result lacks an inventive concept

by | Nov 29, 2016 | [sub] Alice step two, Subject Matter Eligibility

Computer-based automation of a desired result without reciting a particular method for achieving that result does not rise to the level of an inventive concept under step two of the Mayo/Alice framework for establishing subject matter eligibility. Here, for example,...

AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – Generic components working unconventionally to solve a particular technological problem is patent-eligible

by | Nov 1, 2016 | [sub] Alice step two, Subject Matter Eligibility

Generic components working in an unconventional fashion to solve a particular technological problem is patent-eligible under § 101. Here, for example, a network accounting system that used only conventional components (e.g., “gatherers”) was found to be...

SYNOPSYS, INC. v. MENTOR GRAPHICS CORPORATION (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – Improvements to mental processes as opposed to computer efficacy do not qualify as an inventive concept

by | Oct 17, 2016 | [sub] Alice step two, Subject Matter Eligibility

Improvements to mental processes as opposed to computer efficacy do not qualify as an inventive concept for establishing patent eligibility under the second step of Mayo/Alice. Here, for example, claims to an improvement in the design process for a logic circuit...

FAIRWARNING IP, LLC v. IATRIC SYSTEMS, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – The automation of rule-processing is an abstract idea if the improvement is the automation not the rule

by | Oct 11, 2016 | [sub] Alice step one, Subject Matter Eligibility

The automation of rule-processing is a merely directed to an abstract idea if it is the automation rather than the rule that improves a technological process. Here, for example, claims reciting the automation of fraud and misuse detection were found to be directed to...

INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC v. SYMANTEC CORP. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – Novelty and non-obviousness do not alone resolve the question of inventive concept of Alice step two

by | Sep 30, 2016 | [sub] Alice step two, Subject Matter Eligibility

Novelty and non-obviousness do not alone resolve the question of inventive concept at the second step of Mayo/Alice. Here, for example, although the prior art did not disclose the idea of “determining” and “outputting” a particular type of e-mail, these operations...

AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – Functionally described display of information does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea

by | Sep 23, 2016 | [sub] Alice step two, Subject Matter Eligibility

A mere functionally described display of information does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Here, for example, the novel use of a downloadable application for out-of-region delivery of regional broadcast content was found to lack an inventive...